-
," /' USDA -:==a
DECISION NOTICE
AND
FINDING OF No SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)
BRIDGE FIRE SALVAGE AND REFORESTATION PROJECT
USDA Forest Service Dixie National Forest
Powell Ranger District Garfield County, Utah
INTRODUCTION
The Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Bridge Fire Salvage
and Reforestation Project documents a proposal to treat an area
within the Dixie National Forest by salvaging dead and dying
timber, increasing downed woody material for soil stabilization
purposes, and reforesting burned conifer s tands. Several
alternatives were considered, of which two were selected for
detailed analysis in the EA. These were (I) the Modified Proposed
Action and (2) No Action. The Mod ified Proposed Action is a
revision of the Proposed Action that was described in a Scoping and
Opportunity to Comment document made available to interested
parties on September 30,2010. The reaso ns for changing the
Proposed Action are described below in the "Altematives Considered"
section of thi s document. This Decision Notice ancl the
accompanying FONSI are based on the results and findings of the EA,
a review of the Response to Public Comments and a review of the
Dixie National Fores t Land and Reso urce Management Plan (Forest
Plan). The EA is available for public review at the Powell Ranger
District located in Panguitch, T, and on the Forest Service website
at http://fs. usda.go v/dixie.
PURPOSE AND NEED OF THE MODIFIED PROPOSED ACTION
The purpose of thi s project is to accelerate the recovery of
the project area from the impacts of the Bridge Fire. Associated
with this purpose are four distinct needs. There is an immediate
need to recover the economic value of bumed timber before the
commercial vaJ ue of the wood is lost to deterioration. There is a
need to s tabilize soils to minimize excessive runoff and erosion.
There is a need to accelerate the long-teml restoration of forest
conditions. Finally, there is a need to provide for public safety
from hazardous fire-killed trees near designated open roads and
trails.
- Decision Notice and FONSI Page 1 of 13
http://fs.usda.gov/dixie
-
USDA ~
PROJECT LOCATION
The Bridge Fire Salvage and Reforestation Project is located
approximately 8 miles southwest of Bryce Canyon City, UT along
Forest Road 30087 (East Fork Road) on the Paunsaugunt Plateau. The
project area is 3,732 acres defined mostl y by the perimeter of the
2009 Bridge Fire, and is within the Powell Ranger District of the
Dixie National Forest in Garfield Coun ty. The project area is
located east of FR 30087 within the East Fork of the Sevier River
drainage, bounded by Bridge Hollow to the south and FR 30185
(Whiteman Bench Road) to the north. The eastern boundary follows
the National Forest boundary with Bryce Canyon National Park. There
are several existing roads located within the project area.
Elevation within the project area ranges from 7,800 to around 8,700
feet. The project area includes all or parts of Sections
4,5,8,9,16, 17, 18 , 19,20,29,30, and 31 ofT37S, R4W, and Section
36 ofT37S, R4.5W of the Salt Lake Baseline Meridian.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The Modified Proposed Action
The Modified Proposed Action has four separate activities:
salvage/sanitation harvest, soil stabilization treatment,
reforestation, and hazard tree removal. The Modified Proposed
Action is a modification of the original Proposed Action described
in the project's Scoping and Opportunity to Comment document dated
September 30, 2010. The modification was the result of the
discovery that two units slated for salvage harvest had been
adversely affected by rain events in the summer of 201 O. As a
result, these units were removed from the areas proposed for
harvest. They are, however, included in the areas considered for
non-harvest activities. The four activities included in the
Modified Proposed Action are described below.
1. Salvage/Sanitation Harvest
Merchantable fire-killed trees and trees in a high risk
condition of dying on 473 acres of burned sites would be felled and
removed using ground-based skidding methods. A high risk condition
of dying is defined as (1) live trees with 80% or more of the
pre-fire live crown damaged by scorch and/or consumption, (2) fire
damaged live trees showing evidence of post fire bark beetle
infestations, and (3) live trees infected by dwarf mistletoe or
other diseases. Any live trees infected with dwarf mistletoe
capable of infecting planted seedlings (within 2 tree lengths or
100 feet of seedlings) would be harvested, felled or girdled for
snag recruitment. Mechanized harvest should only occur on slopes
less than 40 percent. Unmerchantable material at public accessible
landings would be made available for fuel wood or biomass. Any
remaining material at landings would be pile burned or scattered
after fuel wo,)d removal. An estimated volume of 6, 123 CCF 1
is expected to be recovered . See Appendix A for Figure 2:
Modified Proposed Action Map: Salvage/Sanitation Harvest.
I CCF: a hundred cubic feet. A cub ic foot is a unit of true
volume that measures I x I x I fecI.
- Decision Notice and FONSI Page 2 of 13
-
USDA ~
The proposed salvage would use a combination of designated
roads, motorized trail s and temporary roads. Des ignated roads and
motorized trail s totaling 12.98 miles would be used for hauling
and accessing sa lvaged timber. Haul roads used during harvest
activities would be maintained through regularly scheduled blade
grading. Portions of haul roads may be improved to mcet current Fo
rest standards. Harvesting \ovould require constructing 3.07 mil es
of temporary roads utili zi ng existing road beds cu rrently
present on the ground from roads closed by the Motorized Travel
Plan and 0.45 miles of new tempora ry ro ad construction. All 3.52
miles of tempora ry roads would be closed once harvest is
cOITlplete.
2. Soil Stabilization
Standing dead trees on 770 acres of burned forested areas that
are not harvested or need ed for wildlife snag retenti on would be
fell ed by hand or with mechani zed equipment. The 770 acres
include the 473 acres where harves t is proposed, and up to 297
acres of burned areas outside of harvest units. The tree boles
would be left intact on the gTound and the limbs would be lopped
and scattered for the purpose of stab ilizing soi Is and providing
shade shelter for pl an ted conifer seedlings.
3. Reforestation
Ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir seedlings would be manually
planted within 770 acres of high and modera tely burned areas,
harves ted si tes and other fores t stands within the 3,732 acre
project area that experienced a loss of tree stocking below minimum
sta ndards as outlined in the LRMP. See Figure 3: Proposed Action
Mop. Reforestation in the EA for potential planting areas. Site
preparation and reforestation activitics include:
• Any live trees infected with dwarf mistletoe capable of
infecting plantcd seedlings (within 2 tree lengths or 100 fcet of
seedlings) in retorestation areas would be felled or girdled for
snag recruitment.
• Manual planting methods would include hand sca lping a 2'x 2'
area for site preparation and auger or hoedad planting of co
ntainerized conifer seedlings.
• Tree seed lings from local secd of conifer species mix simil
ar to the oliginal stand would be planted. The species planted
would be a mixture of pond erosa pine and Douglas-fi r, depending
on elevation, aspect and slope. Microsite planting: Plant on the
nOl1h side of logs, stumps and other dehris where possible. Sites
for planting would be selected on the basis of maximiz ing expected
seedling survival.
• Planting spacing would be irregular to develop a clumpy stand
structure. • Approximately 300 trees per acre would be planted on
all refo restation sites. The
objective is to have ISO to 200 trees per acre surviving after
five years.
• No new road construction or reconstruction is required to impl
ement reforestation
activities. The exis ting tl'ansportation system is sufficient
to implement the activiti es .
- Decision Notice and FONSI Page 3 of 13
-
USDA ~
4. Hazard Tree Salvage
Hazard trees are defined as trees that ere already dead or in a
high risk condition of dying, and that are within 150 feet of
designated road s or trai Is. Hazard trees would be felled within
burned areas. Merchantabl e hazard trees would be s(1lv(1ged.
Non-mcrchantable hazard trees would be contour-felled. Limbs would
be lopped and scattered to a depth of less than 24 inches. No new
road construction or reconstruction is required to implement hazard
tree salvage activities. The existing transportation system is
sufficient to implement hazard tree salvage activities.
Project Design Features
The following design features are components of the Modified
Proposed Action.
Project Design Features
Wildlife
WL-l: Maintain a minimum average of 300 snags per 100 acres
(greater than 18 inches diameter breast height (dbh) and 30 feet
tall) in mi xed conifer cover type. Maintain an average 01'200
snags per 100 acres (greater than 18 inches dbh and 30 feet tall in
ponderosa pine cover typ::. If the minimum snags are unavailable ,
green trees should be substituted. If the minimum size is unavai
lable , then the largest trees on site should be substituted.
WL-2 Trees designated as wildlife leave trees or as wildlife
snags will be designa ted for retention.
WL-3 Ifraptor nests are discovered prior to or during treatment
operations, a biologist will be consulted to establish a nest zone
buffer and, if appropriate, restrict activities within the nes t
zone during occupancy.
WL-4 In harvest areas manage snClgs for groups of clumps where
possible , according to the intent of the LRj'v!P Northern Goshawk
amendment.
WL-S Project area has been identified by district wildli fe
biologist as preferred elk and mule deer fawning habitCIl. Harvest
activities within all harvest units should be restricted during the
active fawning and calving period. This period nOllllally occurs
from May 1 till June 30.
WL-o Unit 13 is loca ted within a GoshClwk Post Fledgling Area.
Management activities should be restricted during the active
nesting period. The active nesting period will normally occur
between March I" and September 30'h
Hydrology and Soils
HS-l : Sale administration will comply with all applicable Soil
and Water Conservation Practices (SWCP's) (FSH 2509.22) during
project layou t Clnd implementation. The project file contains a
list of specific SWCP's and instructions for contract
preparation.
HS-2 The OAS miles of tempora ry road T31 0 used to access unit
12 will be fully obliterated, re-conloLlfed , planted with grass/fo
rb mix and con i fer seed lings and if necessary barricaded upon
completion of harvest activities. Remove all temporary culverts or
crossing structures. When removing culverts, be sure all fill
materiClI is removed from below the high water line of the stream.
All material that is removed ~hould be placed in a sCIre disposal
area . The remaining fi ll material should be left at a stable
angle. Remaining 3.07 miles of temporary road wi ll be barricaded
and will be ripped and seeded within site distance of designated
open roads. The project file cont~i)ls seeding information for
contract preparation.
HS-3 Ground-based sk idding equipment will be restric ted to
slopes less than 40'/'0. For slopes identitied by sale
administrator as greater than 40%, direct ional hand fallillg and
retrieval by end-lining and rigging is authorized.
HS-4 All project debri s and temporary crossing structu;-es will
be removed from stream course to provide unobstructed passage
during high tlo ws.
HS-S Sale administration with zone hydrologist and timber
purchaser will ensure landings will not be 10cCl ted within defined
stream buffers.
- Decision Not ice and FONSI Page 4 of 13
-
USDA ~
Project Design Features HS-6 Skid trilil cross ings
-
USDA -::=-
-
• USDA ~==
DECISION
Based on 111y revie\v of the Bridge Fire Salvage and
Reforestation Project EA , I have decided to implement the Modified
Proposed Action, with two additional revisions that are described
below, as it best meets (1) the Purpose and Need identitled in the
EA .. and (2) the Standards and Guidelines of the Forest Plun tCJI"
the Bridge Fire project area.
I al11 revising Action fl l to climinute commercial sanitation
harvesting of mistletoe infected live trees. This change has the
benctlts of providing additional trees for seed source, shade,
wildlife and soil retention.
I am also revising Action # I to require that harvest-generated
slash at landings be returned to the harvest units and scattered or
used for rehabilitation of skid trails, landings and temporary
roads. This requirement will eliminate the opportunity for tlrewood
gathering at landings and the need for burning of slash at
landings. This revision will provide additional downed material for
stabilization of soils in areas where much of the pre-tIre downed
woody debris was burned.
The EA and accompanying speciu/ist reports includcd in the
project record document the findings and conclusions upon which
this decision is based.
RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION
In making this decision [ considered comments and concerns from
interested individuals and organizations. During the public comment
periods, two commenters requested that the analysis consider an
alternative that would omit the commercial salvage harvest. Their
rationale was that (1) there is no demand for the wood and (2) the
ecological impacts of logging are too great. This alternative was
considered but was eliminated from detailed study. I believe that
this was justified for the following reasons. First , a demand docs
exist, as demonstrated by the fact that over the last two years,
three similar fire salvage sales have been sold on the Dixie
National Forest. Second, the analysis of environmental consequences
in the EA demonstrates that the harvest can be implemented without
undue harm to the environment and, in fact, will provide
environmental benefits, namely stabili ; ation of soils in burned
areas and timely reforestation of these burned areas.
One commenter requested that opposing scientific knowledge be
considered, including numerous references supplied by the
commenter. These references were reviewed and considered, along
with other scientific literature that is recognized as relevant to
forest management. Based on this review I have determined that the
best available science was used to reach conclusions regarding
treatment design, road access, and other clements of thi s
project.
One commenter requested that the area within the project area
that is included in the ·'Citizen's Proposal " for wilderness be
eliminatecl t)·om harvest trcatment. As described in Section 3.8.1
of the EA, the project area c10es not include any Inventoried
Roadlcss Areas (IRAs). During the most recent Forest Plan revision
process, the Forest inventoried and evaluated areas in addition to
the IRAs for their wilderness character. This inventory was termed
the undevelopecl /unroaded inventory and evaluation. Applying the
undeveloped/unroacled inventory criteria, no areas within the
project area qualitled t()I" undeveloped/unroaded status. Decisions
regarding wiJderness eligibility are made during the Forest Plan
revi sion process.
- Decision Notice and FONSI Page 7 of 13
-
USDA ~
I also considered the analyses described in th~ EA and related
specialist reports. Chapter 3 of the EA describes how the Modified
Proposed Action and No Action affect various resources within the
project area. Based on my review of these effects, I have
determined that the Modified Proposed Action best meets the
project's purpose and need without having substantial adverse
effects on the human environment.
Sum111urizing my reasons for selecting the Modified Proposed
Action, this alternative will have the following specific outcomes
consistent with the project's purpose and need:
First, the Modified Proposed Action will recover the economic
value of burned trees and support loc81 communities by providing
salv8geable wood products to the local forest industry. The
activities are expected to cre8te or 1118int8in 6 jobs 8nd provide
over $1.8 million in income throughout Garfield County, UT.
Second, the Modified Proposed Action will quickly provide
addition81 C08rse woody debris to burned soils within the burned
area. This action will help stabilize forest soils by using felled
trees to cover the soil and slovv surface flow of water, reducing
loss of topsoil to erosional processes. This action will also
provide abundant woody debris to be used for shelter by various
wildlife and shade to planted seedlings.
Third , the Modified Proposed Action will accelerate the
development of new forest stands by planting conifer seedlings
within severely burned st8nds, ensuring desirable tree species will
be established.
Fourth, the Modified Proposed Action will provide for public
safety by removing haz8rdous trees immediately from forest r08ds
and trails.
I did not select the No Action alternative as it does not fully
meet the project's purpose and need 8nd in some cases does not meet
the goals and objectives of the Forest Plan, including the
objectives of the 7 A Wood Production and Utilization management
area. Following are the specific issues that led me to reject the
No Action alternative:
First, with no action the opportunity to recover the economic
value of the burned timber would be lost , resulting in lost
opportunities for economic development in the local area.
Second, while coarse woody debris would accumulate as trees falJ
down over time, this would occur very slowly, and soil erosion
would continue at the cunent high rate for up to ten years. With no
action, forest plan goals to secure and maintain favorable water
flow through reestablishing soil, hydrologic and vegetative
conditions would not be met for m8ny ye8rs.
Third, while vegetative cover would establish under natural
conditions over time, due to soil qU81ity and climate, vegetative
cover may not rc-establish satisfactorily to the preferred species
mix.
Fourth, falling ofh8zard trees along open roadways within the
project area could jeopardize public safety for many years, and
require recurring maintenance as individual trees fall on forest
roads and trails.
- Decision Notice and FONSI Page 8 of 13
-
USDA ~
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND ISSUES
This action was originally listed as a proposal on the Dixi e
National Fores t Schedule of Proposed Actions on July 1,20 I 0 and
has been updated periodically during the analysis , People were
invited to review and cO lllment on the proposal through a Scoping
and Opportunity to Comment document mailed to interes ted pal1ics
on September 30, 20] 0, The scoping notice was publi shed on
October 5, 20 lOin Th e Spectrum, the newspaper of record located
In St. George, UT. This initiated a 30-day notice period, Chapter 4
of the EA identifies agencies, organizations, and individuals
consulted, A "res pon se to public co millents" located within the
project file summari zes written comments and how the Forest
Service addressed these comments,
The Forest Service used public comments from the 30-day notice
period as the means for identifying issues, In accordance with the
Council for Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations (Sec, 1501,7)
issues were separated into two groups: key and non-key, Key issues
were defined as those direct ly or indirectly caused by
implementing the proposed action (or, in thi s case, the Modified
Proposed Action). Non-key issues were identified as those: 1)
outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by
law, regulation, Forest Plan , or other higher level decision ; 3)
irrelevant to th e deci sion to be mad e; or 4) conjectural and not
supported by sci entific or factual ev idence, The
Interdisciplinary Team identified no topics raised during comment
periods that consti tuted key issues, A I ist of non-key issues and
reasons regarding their categorization as non-key may be found in
the project file,
FINDING OF No SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)
Based on the interdisciplinary environn'1ental analysis, review
of the National Environmental Policy Act (N EPA) criteria for
significant effects, and my knowledge of the expected impacts, 1
have determined that thi s action does not pose a significant
effect on the quality of the human environment. Theref(xe, an
Environmental Impact Statement is not need ed, Thi s determination
is based on the following factors:
I , My finding of no significant environmental effects is not
biased by the beneficial effects of the action. The effects
described in the EA , Chapter 3, SLlppol1 this finding,
2, The degree to which the Modified Proposed Action affects
public health or safety. This action does not pose a substantial
significant effect on public health or safety. The proposed hazard
tree removal wiJl improve public safety, The hazard tree action is
described in the b\, Chapter 2, Section 2,1.2,
3, Unique characteristics of the geographic area, such as
proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime
farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically
cI"itical areas. The project area has no park lands, prime
farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers , or ecologically
critical areas that will be affected by the Moditied Proposed Acti
on, Nor is the project area within a designated wilderness or an
inventoried Roadless Area, The project area has been surveyed for
historic and cultural resources and the project wi] I not affect hi
storic or cultural resources, Documentation of these findin gs can
be found in Chapter 3 of the EA and in speciali st reports included
in the project record ,
- Decision Notice and FONSI Page 9 of 13
-
USDA ~
4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human
environment are likely to be highly controversial. The effects on
the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly
controversial. This is based on the analysis of resource
specialists and comments from other agencies and the public. Not
all of the comments were in support of this project. However, after
reviev/ ing the project record and EA , I am confident that the
Interdisciplinary Team reviewed these comments and either
incorporated them into the Modified Proposed Action or add ressed
them in the appropriate resource sections. It is my judgment that
there is not an unusual or high degree of controversy associated
with this project. There is a difference of opinion concerning
whether salvage harvest is necessary or in the public interest. I
ha ve determined that it is in the public interest to provide
material for the forest industry and to accelerate recovery of
forest lands . Public comments and the Forest Service's response to
comments are included in the project record.
5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human
environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown
risks. There are no known effects on the human environment that are
highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks . All of the
effects of the Modified Proposed Action are similar to those taken
into consideration in the analyses of the Forest Plan and other
salvage or harvest projects within the Dixie National Forest.
Effects on the huma environment are desclibed in Chapter 3 of the
EA .
6. I have considered the uncertainty of effects of the project
on climate change. There may be short-term alteration to the carb
on cycle caused by cutting of the trees, although trees being
removed are either fire-killed or will be dead within 3 years and,
therefore, will no longer be fixing carbon. If not harvested, they
will soon begin to decompose and emit greenhouse gases (GHG). The
Modified Proposed Action will sequester carbon in wood products and
plants as a living forest is re-established There may be
short-tellll GHG emissions from the use of vehicles and machinery
during the implementation of the project. Because greenhouse gases
mix readily into the global pool of greenhoLlse gases, and this
project is extremely small in the global atmospheric CO2 context,
the effect of this project on GHG emissions and carbon cycling is
minor. The effects on climate are described and analyzed in Section
3.3 of the EA.
7. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for
future actions with significant effects, or represents a decision
in principle about a future consideration. The Modified Proposed
Action does not represent a precedent for future actions with
significant effects or represent a decision in principle about a
future consideration. As referenced in #3 above, the project is not
within a designated wilderness or an Inventoried Roadless Area, and
will not affect future management of any lanel area that falls into
one of these categories. The assessment is site-specific and its
actions incorporate those practices derived from current science or
envisioncd in the Dixie National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan and are within the Standards and Guidelines
included in the Forest Plan. The effects on wilderness and
Inventoried Roadless Areas are described and analyzed in Section
3.8 of the EA.
8. Whether the action is related to other actions with
individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts.
There are no known significant cumulative effects between this
project and other projects implemented or planned in the area
afTected by
- Decision Notice and FONSI Page 10 of 13
-
• USDA ~
this project. The EA describes the anticipated cumulative
effects. 1 am satistied, after reviewing the EA, that none of the
cumulative effects of the Moclified Proposed Action arc
signiticant. Cumulative effects are described in Chapter 3 of the
EA.
9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect distdcts,
sites, highways, structures, or objects listed, or eligible for
listing, in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause
loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or
histodcal resources. There are no kno'vvn di stricts, sites,
highways , structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing
in the Nat ional Register of Historic Places that would be
significantl y affected by this project. Section 2.5 of the EA
provides di sc losures regarding compliance with the National Hi
storic Preservation Act.
J O. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an
endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been
determined to bc cr-itical under the Endangered Species Act of
1973. The wildlife analysis identified no adverse effects on
endangered or threatened species or their habltats and the required
Biological Assessment has been prepared. Effects on endangered and
threa tened species and other species of concern are described and
analyzed in Chapter 3 of the EA.
11. \Vhether the action threatens to violate Federal, State, or
local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the
cnvironment. Implementation of the Moditied Proposed Action will
not violate any Federal , State, or local law or requirements
imposed for the protection of the environment. Chapter 4 of the EA
identities entities that were consulted during the preparation of
the EA. These included environmental management agencies at the
local, State, and Federal levels. Section 2.5 of the EA provides
discl osures regarding co mpliance with key Federal laws and
regulations. The State of Utah' s Public Land s Policy Coordination
Office identitied air quality regulations that must be followed. In
Section 2.3 of the EA, th e project' s design features identities
adherence to the State of Utah Air Quality Rule as a proj ect
implementation requirement. In its comments on this project
Garfield County identitied no concerns regarding adherence to local
regulations. Relevant letters from the State of Utah and Garfield
County are included in the project record.
FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS
Thi s deci sion is consistent with the following laws: • Nati
onal Forest Management Act • Clean Water Act • Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended • American Antiquities Act of 1906 and Hi
storic Preserva tion Act of 1966 • Executive Order J 1990 of May,
1977 (Wetlands) • Executive Order 11988 of May, 1977 (Floodplains)
• Executive Orderl21N8 of February, 1994 (Environmental Justice) •
Executive Order 13186 of January, 2001 (Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA)) • Strategy for Implementing MBTA and EO 13 J 86 on National
Forest land s in Utah of
March 2007
- Decision Notice and FONSI Page 11 of 13
-
USDA -';O
-
USDA ~
Implementation If no appea l is received, implement8tion of thi
s decision Jl18 y occur on, but not before, 5 business da ys from
the closc of the uppc81 filing period. If 8n 8ppe81 is recei ved,
implementation may not occur fo r 15 da ys following the dutc of
appeal di sposition. Implcmentution of this decision is expected to
begin during the summer of 20 I I.
Contact A decision record of th e EA is avaiJuble upon public
requ est 8t the Powell R8nger District office , 225 East Center
Street, Panguitch, Ut8h 84759. For furth er informati on concerning
this project and decis ion, cont8ct the Interdisciplinary Te8l11
Leader at the 8bovc add ress or (435) 676-9300.
Robert G. MacWhorter Date
Forest Supervisor
The U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits
discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of
race, color, national origin, age, disability , and where
applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status,
religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political
beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an ind ividual's
income is derived from any public assis tance program . (Not all
prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities
who require alternative means for communication of program
information (Braille , large print, audiotape, etc.) should contac
t USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TOO). To file a
complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of
Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W, Washington, D.C.
20250-9410, or ca ll (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382
(TOO). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
- Decision Notice and FONSI Page 13 of 13